Dismissed

Mr. Ramesh Kisanrao Marbade and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra through Principal Secretary, Ministry of Education and Ors.

Bombay HC15 Dec 2015WP/3790/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Bombay High Court rejected challenges to RTE Act schedules and dismissed multiple writ petitions regarding surplus teachers and State education policies in Maharashtra, intervening only to recall earlier interim orders.

What did the court decide?

Petitions dismissed; surplus teachers to retain Head-Master benefits until absorbed; earlier interim orders vacated.

Mr. Ramesh Kisanrao Marbade and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra through Principal Secretary, Ministry of Education and Ors. — Bombay HC (2015) — LawSathi Research

¶1

1 wp-3706-15 judgment.sxw

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

Writ Petition NO. 3706 OF 2015 ULHAS G RATHOD AND ORS. ...Petitioner(s) Versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS ...Respondent(s) WITH Writ Petition NO. 3789 OF 2015 MR. RAJENDRA YADAVRAO SOMANKAR AND ORS. ...Petitioner(s) Versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND ORS. ...Respondent(s) WITH Writ Petition NO. 3790 OF 2015 MR. RAMESH KISANRAO MARBADE AND ORS. ...Petitioner(s) Versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND ORS. ...Respondent(s) WITH Writ Petition NO. 3791 OF 2015 HINDUSTHAN VIDYA MANDIR AND ORS. ...Petitioner(s) Versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS ...Respondent(s) WITH Writ Petition NO. 3792 OF 2015 SMT. ASHADEVI JALSINGH BHALAVI ...Petitioner(s)

¶5

1/8

¶6

2 wp-3706-15 judgment.sxw

¶7

Versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, SCHOOL EDUCATION AND SPORTS DEPT. AND ORS. ...Respondent(s)
WITH Writ Petition NO. 3793 OF 2015
BHANDARA ZILLA SHAIKSHANIK SANSTHA SANCHALAK MAHA MANDAL AND ANR ...Petitioner(s) Versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS ...Respondent(s)
WITH Writ Petition NO. 3872 OF 2015
VINAYAKARAO DESHMUKH HIGH SCHOOL SOCIETY ...Petitioner(s) Versus
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. ...Respondent(s)
WITH Writ Petition NO. 3882 OF 2015
JAGDISH KESHAV NAHOKAR ...Petitioner(s) Versus
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. ...Respondent(s)
WITH Writ Petition NO. 3883 OF 2015
DEVENDRA ISMIAL KEDAR AND ORS. ...Petitioner(s) Versus
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 3885 OF 2015

¶8

2/8

¶9

3 wp-3706-15 judgment.sxw

¶10

DILIPKUMAR S/O ASARAM MESHRAM, ...Petitioner(s) Versus
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 3886 OF 2015
SMT. ALKA ANANDRAO BHANARKAR AND ANR. ...Petitioner(s) Versus
STATE OF MAHRASHTRA AND ORS. ...Respondent(s)
WITH Writ Petition NO. 4965 OF 2015
JALGAON ZILLA MADHYAMIK VA UCHHAMADHYAMIK SHALA SHIKESHEKETAR SEVAK SANGH JALGAON AND ANR. ...Petitioner(s) Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ors . ...Respondent(s) WITH
Writ Petition NO. 6924 OF 2015
MADHAVI VIDYA PRASARAK MANDAL GANESH NAGAR, NAGPUR AND OTHR. ...Petitioner(s) Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ...Respondent(s)
WITH Writ Petition NO. 6925 OF 2015
KU. MONIKA D/O KAWADU GHARDE & ANR. ...Petitioner(s) Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ...Respondent(s) WITH Writ Petition NO. 6927 OF 2015
PRAGATIK ADYAPAK SHIKSHAN SANSTHA.
KORADI. NAGPUR ...Petitioner(s) 3/8

¶11

4 wp-3706-15 judgment.sxw

¶12

Versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ...Respondent(s) WITH Writ Petition NO. 6932 OF 2015
PIPLA SHIKSHAN SANSTHA AND Ors. ...Petitioner(s) Versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ...Respondent(s) WITH Writ Petition NO. 6935 OF 2015
KAMPTEE CITIZEN EDUCATION AND CULTURAL SOCIETY, KAMPTEE. AND ANR. ...Petitioner(s) Versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ...Respondent(s) WITH Writ Petition NO. 6936 OF 2015
RAVI S/O VISHWESHWAR BUNDHADE ...Petitioner(s) Versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ...Respondent(s) WITH Writ Petition NO. 8201 OF 2015
KU. AARTI KHUSHALCHAND DHAGE, ...Petitioner(s) Versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, ...Respondent(s)
WITH Writ Petition NO. 8552 OF 2015
SMT. KAMAL BULABRAO WARHADE & Ors. ...Petitioner(s) Versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHR. ...Respondent(s)

¶13

4/8

¶14

5 wp-3706-15 judgment.sxw

¶15

WITH

¶16

Writ Petition NO. 9467 OF 2015

¶17

ROSHAN S/O NILKANTH MARASKOLHE ...Petitioner(s) Versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & Ors ...Respondent(s)

¶18

WITH

¶19

Writ Petition NO. 9468 OF 2015

¶20

BALKRUSHNA S/O BULAB SHRIRAM ...Petitioner(s) Versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & Ors ...Respondent(s)

¶21

WITH

¶22

Writ Petition NO. 9471 OF 2015

¶23

GAJANAN S/O HARICHAND BHOYAR ...Petitioner(s) Versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & Ors ...Respondent(s)

¶24

WITH

¶25

Writ Petition NO. 9473 OF 2015

¶26

VINOD S/O ISHWAR PARANDE ...Petitioner(s) Versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & Ors ...Respondent(s)

¶27

None for the Petitioners.

¶28

Mr. R.S. Apte, Senior Advocate a/w Ms. S.S. Bhende, AGP for the State.

¶29

CORAM : ANOOP V. MOHTA AND A.A. SAYED, JJ. DATE : 15 DECEMBER 2015.

¶30

ORAL JUDGMENT:-(PER ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) :-

¶31

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

¶32

5/8

¶33

6 wp-3706-15 judgment.sxw

¶34

Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the respective

¶35

parties, in other similarly place Writ Petitions.

¶36

2 All these matters are listed from time to time and agreed to be heard together finally and therefore, common arguments on behalf of the respective parties have been heard in Writ Petition No. 9026 of 2014, Sindhudurg Zilla Shikshan Sanstha Chalak Mandal, Pandur (Registered) Vs. The Union of India and other connected matters . Therefore, the common Judgment, covering all the issues, though in some of the Petitions, inspite of due notices, the Petitioners and/or their respective counsel were absent. In the interest of justice and to avoid further delay in implementing the education policy decision, we are disposing of all these Petitions also together, in the line of Judgment passed today, i.e. on 15 December 2015, by us in Writ Petition No. 9026 of 2014 ( Sindhudurg Zilla Shikshan Sanstha Chalak Mandal, Pandur (Registered) (Supra) and other connected matters.

¶37

3 Therefore, for the reasons recorded in the Judgment in ( Sindhudurg Zilla Shikshan Sanstha Chalak Mandal, Pandur (Registered) (Supra) and other connected matters, we pass the

¶38

6/8

¶39

7 wp-3706-15 judgment.sxw

¶40

following order:-

¶41

ORDER

¶42

a) The challenge to the Constitutional validity of Schedule under RTE Act is rejected.

¶43

b) No interference in the State education policies and the Circulars/GRs including Government Resolution dated 13 December 2013, 26 August 2015, so also related State Circulars/letters/orders.

¶44

c) The State Government to re-visit, re-assess and reevaluate the eduction policies from time to time, and implement it in accordance with the governing laws.

¶45

d) The services of surplus “permanent teachers” including, Head-masters are protected to the extent of providing them all the financial benefits till they are continued in same school or they are accommodated or absorbed elsewhere or declared surplus.

¶46

e) The surplus declared head-masters are entitled for their salary as of Head-masters, though required to

¶47

7/8

¶48

8 wp-3706-15 judgment.sxw

¶49

work as Senior teacher in the School.

¶50

f) The State to proceed as per the Government Circulars and take effective steps to achieve the constitutional and RTE Act objects.

¶51

g) All the Petitions, including Public Interest Litigation are disposed of accordingly.

¶52

h) In view of above reasons, all the interim orders, even if any, granted earlier, stand vacated.

¶53

i) Rule in all the matters are discharged accordingly. j) In view of the dismissal of the Petitions, all the connected Civil Applications are also disposed of.

¶54

k) There shall be no order as to costs.

¶55

(A.A. SAYED, J.) (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)

¶56

8/8

Mr. Ramesh Kisanrao Marbade and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra through Principal Secretary, Ministry of Education and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Ramesh Kisanrao Marbade and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra through Principal Secretary, Ministry of Education and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suman Bala Vs Union of India and Anr.

Mr.Sunil Raghunath Kulkarni Vs Mr. Suhasini Sunil Kulkarni

Nashik Gramin Shikshak Prasarak Mandal through Its General Secretary and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Ulhas G Rathod and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Nanda Gambhirdas Angre Vs 1. State of Maharashtra, and Ors.

Mr. Rajendra Yadavrao Somankar and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra through Principal Secretary, Ministry of Education and Ors.